CA Pub. Decisions

Where defendant was convicted of attempted murder and was convicted of same person's murder when victim died after first trial resulting in the first conviction being vacated and the charge of attempted murder dismissed but murder conviction was reversed on appeal and that charge subsequently dismissed, reinstatement of attempted murder conviction was authorized by statute and did not violate constitutional protections against double jeopardy.

Comprehensive medical legal report or treating physician's report need not state the injured worker's condition has reached permanent and stationary status to indicate the existence of permanent disability within the meaning of Labor Code Sec. 4660(d), which provides that where a report indicating permanent disability was rendered prior to January 1, 2005, the disability rating schedule in existence prior to that date shall apply.

Claims presentation requirement of Government Claims Act does not preclude a class action for refund of utility user taxes from being brought on behalf of class members who did not present individual claims. Los Angeles County ordinance establishing procedures for presenting certain claims against county applies only if the claim is excepted from the Government Claims Act claims presentation requirement by Government Code Sec. 905, and is not governed by any other statute or regulation expressly relating to the claim, and thus does not apply to a claim for a refund of utility user taxes.

Claims by victims of alleged child molestation were time barred under Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 340.1 which precludes claims against alleged molester's employer after the victim's 26th birthday unless the plaintiff produces evidence that the employer knew or had reason to know, or was otherwise on notice of any unlawful sexual conduct by the molester where plaintiffs acknowledged that they did not notify employer of molestations, and none of the evidence presented by plaintiffs concerning employer's later knowledge of perpetrator's activities established that employer knew or had reason to know of such activities prior to the incidents alleged by plaintiffs.

Welfare and Institutions Code Sec. 300(a), which allows dependency court to take jurisdiction of minor if child has suffered or is at a substantial risk of suffering "serious physical harm inflicted nonaccidentally" by a parent or guardian, but excepts from phrase any "reasonable and age-appropriate spanking to the buttocks where there is no evidence of serious physical injury," is not unconstitutionally vague because it is sufficiently certain, and parents of common intelligence can discern what injuries fall within its reach. Where mother struck children with belt causing serious physical harm, denied and minimized what she had done and attempted to justify it as legitimate corporal punishment, and dismissed daughter's claim of sex abuse by mother's boyfriend and threatened girl that she would never see her father again if she told anyone about it, sufficient evidence existed to find that mother's conduct posed a substantial risk of serious harm to children under Sec. 300(a), (b) and (j). Evidence that mother's boyfriend had requisite intent to sexually abuse daughter under Penal Code Sec. 11165.1 or to commit lewd or lascivious acts under Penal Code Sec. 288 was sufficient to support dispositional order taking children from mother and placing them with father under Welfare and Institutions Code Sec. 300(d). Dependency court's dispositional order placing children with father after finding by clear and convincing evidence that leaving them with mother created a substantial danger to their physical and emotional well-being and that there were no reasonable means to protect the children short of removing them from mother's custody was proper where evidence supported both court's jurisdictional findings and its finding that lesser alternatives to removal would not have worked.

Insurance Code Sec. 530 and the "efficient proximate cause" doctrine that it codifies do not require homeowners' insurer, under policy covering losses to the dwelling and personal property caused by a sudden and accidental discharge of water from any plumbing or household appliance but excluding losses from mold, to cover mold damage resulting from a covered sudden and accidental discharge of water where the policy language plainly and precisely communicated that the mold exclusion would take precedence.

Trial court abused its discretion by limiting plaintiffs' discovery of addresses and telephone numbers of persons identified by defendant as having potentially discoverable information to those persons willing to have their addresses and phone numbers disclosed in response to an inquiry by a third party administrator. Such restriction unduly hampered plaintiffs in conducting discovery to which they were entitled by erecting obstacles that exceeded the protections necessary to adequately guard the privacy rights of the persons involved and exceeded protections given by law to more sensitive personal information.

Trial court abused its discretion by limiting plaintiffs' discovery of addresses and telephone numbers of persons identified by defendant as having potentially discoverable information to those persons willing to have their addresses and phone numbers disclosed in response to an inquiry by a third party administrator. Such restriction unduly hampered plaintiffs in conducting discovery to which they were entitled by erecting obstacles that exceeded the protections necessary to adequately guard the privacy rights of the persons involved and exceeded protections given by law to more sensitive personal information.

Where defendant limited liability company entered into contract to sell real property to partnership, and partnership subsequently assigned rights under contract to plaintiff limited liability company that did not exist at time of contract formation, plaintiff could enforce any pre-organization contract made on its behalf if plaintiff adopted or ratified such agreement, and trial court erred in granting summary judgment to defendant. Defendant could not argue that plaintiff failed to adopt or ratify agreement where defendant did not raise argument below. Where defendant contended that plaintiff was required to present admissible evidence that it would have been financially able to close transaction, but presented no evidence that plaintiff could not arrange for necessary funding to close transaction on time, burden of production never shifted to plaintiff to present contrary evidence, and summary judgment for defendant was improper.

Where a trial court relies on alternative grounds to support its decision and an appellate court affirms decision based on fewer than all of those grounds, only grounds relied on by appellate court can establish collateral estoppel.

Where doctors quit one medical group and joined another, group that formerly employed physicians sued them and the group they had joined, and physicians successfully petitioned to compel arbitration of their former employer's claims against them, trial court was required by Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 1281.4 to stay litigation between the medical groups pending outcome of the arbitration.

Where juvenile court appointed guardian ad litem for parent in dependency proceedings and subsequently terminated parental rights, its failure to explain guardian ad litem to parent and to give parent meaningful opportunity to be heard in opposition to appointment was error, but was subject to harmless error analysis rather than automatic reversal because of differences between dependency and criminal proceedings. Parent suffered no prejudice from error where evidence pointed to conclusion that he was mentally incompetent and in need of guardian ad litem, and would have consented to appointment had it been properly explained. Juvenile court's error was not a structural defect that precluded harmless error analysis because no evidence suggested that error stripped parent of his right to participate in action, that ruling was necessary to enhance incentive to avoid similar error, or that error had undermined integrity and fundamental fairness of dependency proceedings.

Primary assumption of risk doctrine barred action by plaintiff injured while attending skateboarding exhibition at which one of the performers threw a skateboard deck into the crowd, resulting in jostling among spectators seeking to retrieve the deck, which was the alleged cause of plaintiff's injuries. Plaintiff, as a participant in the activity of attempting to retrieve the deck, assumed risk of being injured due to carelessness of fellow participants.

Primary assumption of risk doctrine barred action by plaintiff injured while attending skateboarding exhibition at which one of the performers threw a skateboard deck into the crowd, resulting in jostling among spectators seeking to retrieve the deck, which was the alleged cause of plaintiff's injuries. Plaintiff, as a participant in the activity of attempting to retrieve the deck, assumed risk of being injured due to carelessness of fellow participants.